u 
 
 
 ^'7 
 
 s 
 
 n 
 
 t 
 
 loFr^? J943I1
 
 ._^^^!^^/u^i::C«---c-< 
 
 THE INAUGURAL ADDRESS 
 
 OP 
 
 GOVERNOR A. B. MOORE, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 General Assemtilf of the State of Alabamai 
 
 DELIVERED DECEMBER 1, 1859. 
 
 MONTGOMERY : 
 
 ▲DTKBTISEB BOOK AND JOB STB-VM PR£S3 PRINT. 
 
 18«9
 
 4 fr
 
 J^JD ID PtESS. 
 
 ^ 
 
 Gentlemen of the Senate ana House of Representatives : 
 
 My first term of service as Chief Magistrate of the State has 
 this day expired, and I now appear before yon, clothed with au* 
 thority from the people, to renew my official obligations, prepa- 
 ratory to entering upon the discharge of the duties of another 
 administration. 
 
 This occasion affords me a fit opportunity to tender to the 
 Electors of Alabama, the sincere thanks of a grateful heart for 
 this assurance of their continued confidence. 
 
 There can be nothing more gratifying, to a public servant, 
 £ than to receive unmistakable evidence of the approbation of his 
 
 "" oonstituents. I have endeavored to be faithful in my adminis- 
 
 tration, and have been sustained in my official acts by an ap- 
 ^ proving judgment and conscience. That I have erred in some 
 
 IQ things, and may do so again, is not improbable. No man is per- 
 
 S feet, and no one is more sensible of his imperfections than my- 
 
 self I can only promise you to continue faithful in seeing that 
 the laws are properly executed, and in protecting the interests 
 and honor of the State. In this behalf, I invoke your aid and 
 ^ advice, and the continuance of that generous confidence which. 
 
 'iC has, heretofore, been so liberally extended to me. 
 
 o My message, at the commencement of the session, contained 
 
 uj all the information as to State afiairs, and such recommendations 
 
 q as I deemed necessary and proper to communicate, which leaves 
 
 < me but little to add on this occasion.
 
 It gives me much pleasure to state, that up to this time, Ala- 
 bama has promptly discharged all her obligations, arising out of 
 her foreign and domestic debts, and has established a public 
 credit, unsurpassed by any State in the Union. I feel assured 
 that her high character, in this respect, will not be tarnished 
 by a failure, on the part of the General Assembly, to make 
 proper and timely provisions to meet her future liabilities. In 
 a short time, the State will be relieved Irom all pecuniary obli- 
 gations, incurred in her unfortunate experiment in banking. 
 Experience teaches political communities, as well as individuals, 
 many us«ful lessons. The State of Alabama has been taught 
 by her experience, that it is unwise, and unsafe, to connect her- 
 self with banks, or other corporations. She has profited by this 
 experience, and has, for many years, carefully abstained from 
 such connections. Our present position is such, that if all the 
 banking institutions and railroads, and other corporations in 
 Alabama were to fail, no liabilities would thereby be incurred 
 by the State. 
 
 Perhaps no State in the Union has greater reasons than Ala- 
 bama to congratulate herself on iier present condition and fu- 
 ture prospects. Her soil is unsurpassed in fertility ; her mine- 
 rals, consisting chiefly of iron, coal, marble and lime, are inex- 
 haustible, and her population have the energy and ability, to 
 develop these great resources of wealth and power. Agricultu- 
 ral science is making rapid improvements in many portions of 
 the State. Railroads are gradually penetrating the mineral re- 
 gions, by means of which a larger portion of the State, now 
 utterly worthless for cultivation, will become one of our great- 
 est sources of wealth. In a few years, the pine lands of South 
 Alabama, and the hills and mountains of Middle and North 
 Alabama, will be no longer barren wastes, but will be made to 
 contribute to the Treasury of the State, as well as to the wealth 
 of her citizens. 
 
 A most laudable zeal is manifested in the cause of education. 
 In every portion of the State, schools and colleges, for males
 
 6 
 
 and females, are in successful operation. Individual enterprise 
 is doing all that could be expected for the education of those 
 who have the means of paying for their tuition. There is, how- 
 ever, a large class of children in the State who are not so fortu- 
 nately situated. Whatever is done for them, must be done by 
 the State. She has already done much, but much remains for 
 her to do. Our system of public schools is yet in its infancy? 
 and needs the fostering care of wise legislation, and an able and 
 faithful superintendent, to administer its laws, and to digest and 
 promulgate plans for its improvement. There is no policy by 
 which the State can do more to prevent crime, or to elevate the 
 moral standard of her people, than by extending the means of 
 learning to read and write to every child within her limits. 
 
 So far as the domestic and internal affairs of Alabama are 
 concerned, they give the strongest evidence of present and fu- 
 ture prosperity. 
 
 I regret that the same cannot be said in regard to our federal 
 relations. The crusade against the institution of slaver}'-, com- 
 menced ill 1819, is still going on, and has assumed a threatening 
 and most alarming aspect. If the strong arm of the Black Ke_ 
 publicans is not arrested, the Constitution and the Union will 
 not be able to withstand their assaults much longer. Others, 
 more hopeful than myself, seem to think that the instituti©n of 
 slavery and the rights of the slaveholding States, in regard to 
 the right of property in slaves, are more secure than they were 
 a few years since. They give as grounds for this belief, the re- 
 peal of the Missouri Compromise, the passage of the Kansas- 
 Nebraska act, and the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, in the case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford. 
 
 It is true, that when these acts were passed by Congress, and 
 the decision made by the Supreme Court, the Southern people 
 and the Constitutional men at the North hailed them as harbin- 
 gers of peace, and rejoiced in the belief that much had been done 
 for the security of the rights of the Southern States, and the 
 safety of the Union. But subsequent events have proved, that
 
 these hopes, though apparently well founded, were delusions. — 
 These measures, and this decision, so far from arresting the pro- 
 gress of Black Eepublicanism, and giving peace and quiet to the 
 country, were seized upon to inflame and prejudice the public 
 mind in the non-slaveholding States, and resulted in the defeat 
 of almost every Northern member of Congress who voted for 
 them. The Judges of the Supreme Court, who concurred in 
 the decision referred to, were denounced in the most violent 
 manner, in public meetings and by legislative resolutions. In 
 more recent elections, every member of Congress from the nou- 
 slaveholding States, with a very few exceptions, who voted for 
 the admission of Kansas, under the Lecompton Constitution, was 
 defeated. 
 
 In the face of these facts, and the preceding history of the Ab- 
 olitionists, I should do injustice to my own conscience to tell you 
 that the institution of slavery, or the Union, is now more secure 
 than they were before the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act^, 
 the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the decision of the 
 Dred Scott caac. 
 
 But, in addition to this, a new and distracting question has 
 arisen, as to the power and duty of Congress to protect the right 
 of property in slaves, in the territories of the United States, and 
 the powers of the Territorial Legislatures over the same subject. 
 It is insisted by leading and distinguished statesmen, that by the 
 Kansas-Nebraska Act, the whole question, including the right of 
 protection to property in slaves, has been transferred to the peo- 
 ple of the Territories, and that Southern Senators and Represen- 
 tatives, having voted for that act, we are estopped from claim- 
 ing protection from Congress. In the 14th Section of the Kansas 
 Nebraska Act, it is declared to be "the true intent and meaning 
 of this Act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, 
 nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof per- 
 fectly free, to form and regulate their domestic institutions in 
 their own way, subject'oniy to the Constitution of the United 
 States."
 
 The Act says that Congress will not legislate slavery into or 
 out of a Territory, alluding to it as an institution ; but it does not 
 say that Congress will not interfere to protect the right of prop- 
 erty in slaves in a Territory ; nor can it be fairly inferred from 
 the language of the Act. It is further insisted, that a Terri- 
 torial Legislature may, by "unfriendly legislation," or by refus- 
 ing to legislate for its protection of property in slaves exclude it 
 from the Territories. This doctrine is at war with the very ge- 
 nius of the Federal Government, and destructive of the rights 
 of the Slaveholding States. 
 
 The chief object in establishing the Government of the United 
 States, was protection — protection to life, liberty f>nd property^ 
 and not for the destruction or disparagement of either, except in 
 cases of the commission of crimes. 
 
 All the territory now held by the United States, was acquired 
 from France and Mexico, by the Federal Government as their 
 agent and trustee, and is held for their common use and bene- 
 fit, not merely, as some assert, until the organization of a Terri- 
 torial Government, but until such organized Territory is admit- 
 ted into the Union as a State. In this position, I am sustained 
 by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, already referred to. 
 The Court say, alluding to the Territory purchased from France, 
 "it was acquired by the General Government, as the represen- 
 tative and trustee of the people of the United States, and it must 
 therefore be held in that character for their common and equal 
 benefit ; for it was-the people of the several States, acting through 
 their agent and representative, the Federal Government, who in 
 fact acquired the Territory in question ; and the Government 
 holds it for their common use, until it shall be associated with 
 the other States as a member of the Union," The State Gov- 
 ernments, as such, have no jurisdiction over the Territories of 
 the' United States, and can, therefore, pass no law for the pro- 
 tection of their citizens, either as to persons or property, who 
 may have become inhabitants thereof. The Federal Govern- 
 ment, the trustee of all the States united, abne has the power,
 
 8 
 
 and it is its duty to provide the people of the Territories with a 
 government. For what purpose should they be provided with 
 a government? The answer suggested by every mind js, for 
 the protection of pen- sons and property — surely not for the destruc- 
 tion or prejudice of either. Upon this point, the Supreme 
 Court say, — "But until that time arrives, (meaning the admission 
 of a Territory into the Union as a State,) it is undoubtedly ne- 
 cessary that some government should be established, in order to 
 organize society, and Va protect the inhabitants in iheii persons and 
 property ; and as the people of the United States could act in this 
 matter, only through the Government which represented them» 
 and through which they spoke and acted when the territory was 
 obtained, it loas not only loithin the scope of its powers, hut it was 
 its duty to pass such laws, and establish such a government as 
 would enable those, by whose authority they acted, to reap the 
 advantages anticipated from its acquisition." 
 
 The Court further add, that the rights of property are united 
 with "the rights of person, and are placed on the same ground 
 by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides 
 that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, 
 without due process of law; and an Act of Congress, which 
 deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or prop- 
 erty, merely because he came himself, and brought his property 
 into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had 
 committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified 
 with the name of due process of law." 
 
 The Court clearly show, that if Congress be denied the right 
 to exercise a particular power, it could not confer the right to 
 exercise it upon a territorial government. 
 
 The territorial governments derive their right to legislate 
 fi^om the Federal Government, and have no greater powers 
 than the government from which the power is derived. They 
 are limited and restricted in the exercise of their powers by the 
 Constitution, and the Act of Congress organizing the territorial 
 governments.
 
 9 
 
 The Constitution recognizes the right of property in slaves, 
 and draws no distinction between it and any other species of 
 property. This being true, the Court, on this point, say: "If 
 the Constitution recognizes the right of property of the master 
 in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description o^ 
 property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, 
 acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be 
 legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a 
 distinction, or deny it the benefit of the ijrovisions and guarantees 
 which have been provided for the protection of private property 
 against the encroachments of the government." 
 
 I have, thus far, endeavored to show, and think I have 
 shown, aided by the decision of the Supreme Court, that the 
 Territories are the common property of the United States, and 
 that the Federal Government holds them as trustee for the com- 
 mon use and benefit of the people of all the States, until they 
 are admitted as States into the Union ; that a citizen of any of 
 the States may become an inhabitant of a Territory, and carry 
 with him any property recognized as such in the State from 
 which he emigrated, and his right of property is not affected by 
 his change of residence; that although the Constitution may 
 not establish slavery in a Territory, yet, if it be found there, it 
 affirms the right, and makes no distinction between that and 
 any other description of property, and that both are entitled to 
 equal protection from the Federal Government; that the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States was established, among other 
 things, for the protection of property, and not for its destruction 
 or disparagement ; that Congress has not the power to exclude 
 slave property from the Territories by " unfriendly legislation,'' 
 or by refusing to bgislate for its protection, and could, there- 
 fore, confer no such power upon the people of the Territories. 
 
 It is said, that although a Territorial Legislature can pass no 
 act conflicting with the Constitution, or its organic law, passed 
 by Congress, yet it may refuse to legislate for the protection of 
 the right of property in slaves, and ihat Congress cannot inter-
 
 10 
 
 pose for its protection. A doctrine so iniquitous and unjust, is 
 equivalent to an absolute denial of a constitutional right, and 
 would defeat one of the main objects of the Government. 
 
 It is insisted that owners of slaves in the Territories must 
 look alone to the Federal Courts for protection. It must be 
 apparent to every reflecting mind, that the Courts, under a mere 
 naked power of the Constitution, could not afford adequate pro- 
 tection. The powers delegated to the Federal Government 
 cannot be carried out without the aid of legislation. The framers 
 of the Constitution plainly saw this, and gave to Congress the 
 power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry out the 
 powers delegated to the General Government. 
 
 Why was it that the Federal Government was divided into 
 legislative, judicial and executive departments? The answer is 
 plain. It was necessary to have a Legislature, or Congress, to 
 pass laws to carry out the powers delegated in the Constitution 5 
 and as Congress could not sit in judgment upon its own laws, 
 judicial officers were provided, to decide all questions arising 
 under these laws ; and an executive officer was necessary to see 
 that the laws and the judgments of the Courts were faithfully 
 executed. We cannot fail to perceive, that if Congress fails to 
 enact laws to carry out the powers delegated to the Federal 
 Government, there would be but little use for courts. 
 
 If it be true that Congress, by the passage of the Kansas-Ne- 
 braska act, has deprived itself of the light to interfere for the 
 protection of the right of property in slaves in the Territories, 
 and if it be conceded that the Territorial Legislature may refuse 
 to provide by law for its protection, and that the owners of such 
 property must look alone to the courts for the security of their 
 rights, it follows that although the inhabitants of the Territories 
 have the constitutional right to hold slaves as property, this 
 right is destroyed, or rendered valueless, because Congress has 
 denied itself the right to interpose for its protection, and the Ter- 
 ritorial legislature may refuse to do so. I have already shown 
 that the courts cannot afford adequate protection, without Icgis-
 
 11 
 
 lation, on the part of Congress or the Territorial legislature. If 
 the legislative department of the government, whether it be 
 Congress or its agents, Territorial legislatures, can thus trifle 
 with the rights of the people, the Federal Government has failed 
 to effect the object of its creation, in a matter of vital impor" 
 tance to one section of the Union. But it is urged by some, 
 that admitting Congress has the right to interpose for the pro- 
 tection of the rights of property in slaves in the Territories, 
 that it is an abstract and impracticable right, and ought not to 
 be insisted on. This is an unsafe position to assume. If this 
 right is denied by the non-slaveholding States, where there is no 
 necessity for its exercise, will they not be much more likely to 
 deny it when such necessity arises ? The true position on this 
 point is this : that although there may novv' be no necessity for 
 the interposition of Congress tor the protection of the rights of 
 property in slaves in the Territories, yet ii is a constitutional 
 right, and a. necessity may arise for its exercise. We should 
 not therefore place ourselves in a position, if such a contingency 
 should occur, to be told that we had conceded the right. The 
 idea that the Southern States, or any of them, desire a slave 
 code adopted by Congress for the Territories, exists alone in the 
 imagination of those who assert it. 
 
 Having made a brief and true statement of facts, which show 
 a rapid and fearful increase of the power of the Bkick Republi- 
 cans, and having discussed and shown the dangerous tendency 
 of the new issue, growing out of the slavery question, we are 
 naturally led to ask what is the duty of the slaveholding States 
 under the circumstances ? I can only give you my opinion. 
 They should do everything, that becomes them as patriots, to 
 preserve their rights and equality in the Union. They should 
 insist on all their constitutional rights, and grant the same to 
 every section of the country, and make no more compromises of 
 principles, involving constitutional rights. If they have been 
 taught anything by experience, it is that by compromises and 
 concessions on the question of slavery, they have lost much and
 
 12 
 
 gained nothing. If, with the lights before them, they continue 
 to make concessions of constitutional rights, they will deserve 
 the fate that will certainly overtake them. 
 
 It is manifest, that the Black Republicans intend to be satis- 
 fied with nothing short of the extermination of thj institution of 
 slavery. The " irrepressible conflict" is going on, and has de- 
 veloped itself in a new form, in the bloody tragedy at Harper's. 
 Ferry. The extent of this conspiracy, shows that what the Ab- 
 olitionists cannot effect through the malfeasance or nonfeasance of 
 Congress, and the Territorial Legislatures, they intend to accom- 
 plish by conspiracy, violence and bloodshed. I repeat, then, let 
 the Southern States stand firmly upon the Constitution, as the 
 great platform upon which the Federal Government is erected, 
 and under which their rights can alone be protected. Let it not 
 be supposed from what I have said, that I am a disunionist. — 
 No man is a disunionist who adheres strictly to the Constitution. 
 There is no sacrifice I would not make to preserve the Union 
 as our fathers made it. I should regard its dissolution as a great 
 calamity, but if the alternative should be presented to the State 
 of Alabama of remaining in the Union an uneqal and degraded 
 member, or dissolving her connection with it, she should not 
 hesitate to choose the latter alternative. 
 
 That there is great danger of such an alternative being pre- 
 sented, we cannot doubt. The approaching Presidential elec- 
 tion may test it. 
 
 It is therefore the duty of the friends of the Constitution and 
 equal rights, in every section of the Union, to unite to prevent 
 the election of a Black Republican. That an overruling Provi- 
 dence will direct the public mind in the path of duty and pa- 
 triotism, and carry us safely through the approaching crisis, is 
 my sincere prayer.
 
 '4^